Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Vox Humana

Members
  • Posts

    4,962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vox Humana

  1. I think the point is this, Rowland:

    20 hours ago, Rowland Wateridge said:

    It ought not be possible for others to ‘edit’ and change the meaning of what a contributor has written.  A matter for the editors to take steps to modify the website to prevent this happening?  

    If the website was modified to prevent posts being edited, I don't see how it would then be possible for us to quote selected parts of them.

  2. There is that. I think it just boils down to having the basic courtesy not to distort original posters' statements and the wit to realise when one might be doing it. (Says he, frantically hoping that he's not been guilty himself.)

  3. 36 minutes ago, Brizzle said:

    It depends on one’s definition of practise.  For me, much practise time is taken up repeating the same few bars over and over at increasing tempo until they’re perfect, before moving onto the next chunk.  I don’t imagine this would be particularly edifying to listen to, and probably wouldn’t be successful in a busy building.  
     

    Of course, listening to someone play already well-practised pieces would be a joy, but that’s essentially a concert/recital, which would need preparation time with little or no audience… No easy solution, I suspect.  

    This is the problem, isn't it?  Serious practice isn't just playing pieces through.  As an organ scholar I was incredibly blessed.  The console was only a stone's throw away and I  used to nip over to it most evenings for two or three hours. The organist and sub-organist hardly ever muscled in and, amazingly, no one ever complained. I do appreciate how incredibly lucky I was. But practice during the day was totally out of the question because of the tourists. And, quite honestly, whoever wants to go into a cathedral and hear the same few bars repeated endlessly over and over? I don't. But quiet organ music can be a delight. Salisbury proved this recently, entertaining daily long queues of people waiting for their Covid jabs.  From the news reports I saw, it seemed to be very well received.

    I have just reminded myself of an occasion some years ago. One of our illustrious Hele Huggers sadly died - and it was especially sad because he used to arrange and finance the Foghorn recitals here, which are, alas, no more. I was asked to play BWV 565 at his funeral, so I arranged with the DoM to go and practise in the morning - just for registration and ambience purposes, of course. No sooner had I started than a woman came up from the bookstall at the back of the church, complaining, "If you play that loudly, I shall have to shut up shop!"  I hope my reply was as polite as it was firm: I did try. But I do know what she meant and I sympathise.

  4. 16 hours ago, Rowland Wateridge said:

    The reality is that the majority of our fellow citizens are indifferent to organ music - I almost said classical music.  So, how do we ‘educate’ or persuade them differently?  

    I would certainly include classical music in that statement, always allowing that there are plenty of individuals who do love it, but also, sadly, that the pipe organ has even fewer fans. But, as a general rule, serious classical music lovers are very much a minority in the Britain of today. As to how we set about changing this, it can only be done by educating and enthusing people.  As I have suggested before, my view is that this absolutely has to begin with the education of children from a very young age. They need exposure to classical music and opportunities to engage with it, preferably by learning instruments. When you consider that, in a majority of households, even those with no objection to classical music, they are likely to be bombarded regularly, even constantly, with popular musics—and if their parents and siblings don't do it, the aural media certainly will—these are what will be indoctrinated. You simply cannot escape from this in today's world, so it's no surprise that classical music gets pushed into the margins, or altogether into oblivion.  I am not suggesting that the young don't get exposure to classical music, but is it enough and is it of sufficient quality?  With absolutely no disrespect to music teachers, who do all that they can within the limitations imposed on them, classical music must be made a more important part of the curriculum and be treated as a serious subject, properly resourced and properly funded. It is far, far more than simply a recreation.

    I should just add that I am very aware that the enjoyment of light organ music doesn't necessarily require a sophisticated appreciation of classical music, but my point is that the young need weaning off a diet of guitars and—above all else—drums. We should be enabling them to expand their horizons and appreciation.

  5. On 18/01/2022 at 20:48, OmegaConsort said:

    ... speaking of acclaimed R&D instruments, the 4 manual in St Andrews Plymouth looks very fine on paper

    It does. Whether it also sounds it depends on your point of view. It does have its fans. In the days when the great and good came to give recitals, some of them professed to loving the instrument and I think they meant it. Although its design in 1957 was nominally overseen by a committee comprising William Lloyd Webber, Sir William McKie and Osbert Peasgood, it seems that they had very little input into the final result. The organ is essentially the concept of the church's then-ancient organist, Harry Moreton (1864–1961), a man who could say, "Sebastian Wesley said to my teacher that...", who advised his choirboys to imagine how a driver of a "four in hand" had to control the reins, who had no time for Bach or any earlier music, and whose idea of a tonal chorus could just about tolerate the most delicate of Dulciana Mixtures. Consequently, for all its appearance on paper, the organ is essentially an octopod. Its aesthetic is not dissimilar to a Sauer or Walcker, with tonal colours perhaps best described as 'subtle', or, more bluntly, 'monochrome'. The stops are voiced smoothly for blend and seamless "orchestral" crescendos. Thus the upperwork is non-assertive and all the stops sound somewhat alike: even the Orchestral Oboe and the Great Opens inhabit the same tonal spectrum. The Tromba chorus is oily smooth and completely obliterates all the fluework, while the equally lugubrious Tuba drowns the whole lot.  I don't call this machine "The Foghorn" for nothing. In 1993, in an attempt to impart some brightness to the instrument, Deane's added a second 2' and a Fourniture to the Great. They did the job with such professionalism and artistry that you would never know that the stops were later additions: the Fifteenth and Superoctave are so alike that it is barely possible to tell them apart. However, brightness came there none. As the then organist said, "The only way you will ever get any brightness out of this instrument is to scrap it and start again". All that said, even if tonally the organ is doing its utmost to pretend that it's not really an organ at all, the quality of the pipework, voicing and regulation is very high. And there are some very fine sounds. The Full Swell is actually quite impressive, albeit different from that of a Father Willis. The beautiful Flute Bouchée Harmonique is perhaps the finest sound on the organ, with the possible exception of the French Horn, which is wonderfully realistic. But, in the final analysis, I think the late Bill Drake summed the organ up perfectly: "It's horrible."

  6. 6 hours ago, SomeChap said:

    Pleased that some are still enjoying this thread and it's a bit scary that David Drinkell's posts are only just a short scroll up from here.

    One which has just popped up on Simon Knott's wonderful flickr feed is Holy Trinity, Tattershall in Lincolnshire, an extraordinary late medieval building with lantern-like transepts and a proper stone pulpitum, on which sits an admittedly probably not very distinguished organ not originally built for this church (transplanted here in 1968), but which nevertheless looks very much the part:

    C%20-%20lincs%20(el)%20-%20tattershall%2

    The plastic sheeting is less edifying ...

    Alas, although the case does indeed look the part the organ is now no more than an empty shell. I had a good look round there last October and it was obvious that its innards had been removed. In Mr Knott's portrait photo of the screen and organ case you can clearly see the plastic sheeting behind the organ pipes. In the quire there was what looked to be some sort of digital keyboard covered by a cloth which is presumably what they use now for services.

    I agree about the plastic sheeting, but the church is a roost for some 700 bats, so it is essential to protect the quire where the services are held. The church has embraced the bats' presence. They have some publicity value and hopefully this means that they generate a modicum of income to help fund what must be the very expensive upkeep of one of the most impressive village churches in the country.

  7. 1 hour ago, Denis O'Connor said:

    May I suggest the name of Sir Richard Terry, keen discoverer and editor  of Tudor music, who was Organist at Antigua cathedral for a short time and went on to be Master of the Music at Westminster Cathedral ?

    Again, if I'm not mistaken, a royal grant rather than a political one. He must be credited for putting both Renaissance/Tudor polyphony and the Westminster choir firmly on the musical map and he is remembered for that better than for being an organist.  I imagine these are what earned him his knighthood, but I've always thought it a slightly strange decision, considering that Percy Buck had to sack him from the editorship of the Carnigie Trust Tudor Church Music series because of his slapdash—or, rather, lack of— scholarship (getting emanuenses to do the work and submitting their error-ridden efforts unchecked and uncorrected—one of the Taverner volumes was specifically cited) and he is said to have lost his Westminster job for other chaotic unreliability. Nevertheless, his knighthood, which must reflect his musical prominence, could well be an illustration of how the status of church musicians has sunk in popular estimation since his time.

  8. 9 minutes ago, Adnosad said:

    Just have to comment upon your most marvellous descriptive name for that vast French/Gothic pile in London, now to be referred to as as " The Wabbey. "  This new term of reference could  now be introduced into common parlance!   It certainly appeals to my somewhat distorted/exotic sense of humour  :)

    Not mine, I fear. I wish it was!  It's already fairly common parlance. Even the Abbey's own Twitter feed is @wabbey.

  9. I guess that would be true of Goss and Martin. McKie's knighthood was a personal gift of the queen in her coronation honours; he had previously played her wedding. But some of these were certainly more than 'just an organist'. Stainer, in particular, was so much more: a significant academic and instrumental in guiding government policy on music education. Marchant was principal of the Royal Academy of Music. Bullock resigned from the Wabbey during the war to become an academic in Scotland and was president of the ISM (and became principal of the RCM just after he was knighted), so, again, more than just an organist.

  10. 15 hours ago, Adnosad said:

    Put more simply, to qualify, I`m afraid one has to be able to prove the  worth  of the proposed recipient, whatever the criteria and not merely by the fact one may have  belted out hymn tunes for x number of years in a cold and  draughty building for the  benefit of a minority of the public.

    A Wonderful New Year To One And All  

    I would rephrase that. One has to be able to tick the right boxes on behalf of the proposed recipient, which is not quite the same as "proving the worth". It is no coincidence that candidates already well known to, and indeed suggested by, the local civil servants responsible for initiating the more political of the awards find it quite easy to tick those boxes. Belting out hymn tunes may not qualify, but if you care to substitute pushing a pen with the right degree of sycophancy while simply doing your job, I could name names. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but I have observed how these things are done.

    Genuine question: How many cathedral organists have been knighted just for being a cathedral organist. Bairstow maybe?  Sir Walter Alcock?—but he had played at two coronations (and went on to play at a third). Sir Herbert Brewer and Sir Ivor Atkins presumably earned brownie points by virtue of being mainstays of the Three Choirs Festivals during their tenures.

     

  11. 1 hour ago, S_L said:

    I found that minutes after you had posted!! Yes, it exists in so many different versions. I even found a version of Jean Guillou playing it on a harmonium.

    A Jean Guillou, not the Jean Guillou!

  12. 3 hours ago, Choir Man said:

    Is it right in this day and age that this should be limited to boys and men only? Or that girls and woman can participate so long as they are kept separate from the boys and men?

    What is wrong with having separate boys' and girls' top lines? Mrs Humana has four nieces (as well as a nephew) who as kids sang in single-sex top lines in cathedral choirs and they were deprived of nothing. One of them is now in the choir at Merton and another sang in the various first-rate choirs of Wells Cathedral School. 

  13. I wonder why St John's has taken the decision to go mixed, rather than have a separate girls' top line in tandem with the boys?  It is, after all, one of the very top church choirs in the country and, so far as I know, it isn't bust, so why is it being fixed? The college surely could fund both if it wanted to, so there must be other reasons. Is it getting more difficult to attract boys? I'm sure most DoMs would say yes, but I would have hoped that the very top choirs would not yet be feeling the pinch. On the other hand, there is an obvious disadvantage in that two top lines get only 50% of the singing experience that a single one does.

  14. 8 hours ago, John Robinson said:

    Perhaps a mobile console nearer to the choir!

    In this case the organ is directly above the cantoris choirstalls, so I’m not sure how much advantage a ground-floor console would confer.

  15. Indeed, Darius. I did consider that, but I doubt it very much. We were at the front of the nave (no screen), not very far from organ and choir. The choir may have been slightly more easily audible in the quire, but the difference could not have been much, if anything: the organ would still have been far too loud. The organist was simply using far too much Great Organ - especially for a lumbering, thick-toned H&H (although it was a magnificent instrument of its type). I think the others have already been put off: there was hardly anyone else there! It is, of course, the job of the choirmaster to control the balance, but I have known organists who take this very badly and one in particular who has been told many times by different people that he is playing too loudly, yet remains quite incorrigible. And how many organists have heard their own playing from the congregation’s position?

  16. I have just endured the most depressing experience I have had for quite some time - and when I say depressed I genuinely mean it. Mrs Humana and I have just been to a Choral Evensong in a large church in Lincolnshire. Good, spacious acoustic, fine H&H organ, well-tuned choir. Byrd responses, Walmisley in d minor, Balfour Gardiner Evening Hymn. Apart from the responses, which were insecure, the choir sang very pleasingly in the soft bits. They probably did so too at mf and above, but unfortunately it was impossible to tell for sure because they were completely drowned out by the organist. Even making allowances for circumstances (for all I know, Covid and other factors may have meant the choir was under strength) there was no need for sheer volume of organ used. It wasn’t that the organist couldn’t play. He or she was evidently a highly competent player. Perhaps he/she was only following the choirmaster’s orders, but, whatever the reason, it totally ruined the service. We might as well not have been there. This feeling was compounded, after a very well played voluntary, when Mrs Humana wanted to speak to the vicar, but we waited five minutes while she pointedly ignored us. You would have hoped that any vicar worth their salt would have welcomed visitors, but no. This was old-style Anglicanism at its worst. The whole experience left us feeling very depressed. We certainly won’t ever return here again. Essentially what we got was an organ recital punctuated by readings and prayers. It wasn’t what we went for and we took away nothing positive. This was yet another very competent organist who had no clue about accompaniment. Why?

  17. 1 hour ago, DHM said:

    Vox Humana said:
    "Now that's something you can't do with a toaster, or with The-System-That-Must-Not-Be-Named. "

    If you mean turning the blower off, hearing the wind sag, and the pipes gradually ceasing  to speak, that is something you definitely *can* do with "The-System-That-Must-Not-Be-Named".

    Thank you. I stand corrected. Can it also cope with the depleted wind required for Harmonies?

×
×
  • Create New...